Hillary has the opportunity to put an end to the politics of division.

Hillary Clinton has a choice to make in her campaign against Donald Trump. He is a candidate so profoundly distasteful to such a broad swath of the American electorate that many liberals believe this election offers an opportunity to run to the hard left, and claim the greatest liberal mandate for a Democrat in the White House in almost a century. Their argument is that Hillary can take advantage of the decay and collapse of the Republican Party. For the first time in the modern era, an unabashedly, unreservedly liberal campaign could win a significant majority of the popular vote. That possibility was on display Monday as Clinton campaigned with Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, viewed by many as a progressive champion and a possible Clinton running mate.

However, the power of Senator Warren’s leadership is not in her willingness to fight for an ideology, but in her willingness to fight for her constituents. This is a distinction that should not be missed by the Clinton campaign.

Seeking a far-left mandate is a mistake. The real opportunity for Clinton — what should really tempt her — is the chance to emerge as a unifying political figure after a career as an embattled, divisive player on the national stage.

Hillary has the capacity to lead in this way. Her 2000 and 2006 campaigns for U.S. Senate in New York presented her as deeply pragmatic, interested in results, and committed to bridging divides. She won these races by large margins, her victory in 2006 even greater than in 2000.

In the Senate, she was known for working closely with Republican lawmakers to get things done for her constituents. She reached out to pro-life Americans. She traveled the country with then-Sen. Sam Brownback to raise awareness of the tragedy of human trafficking before it was the popular justice issue it is today. She was a quietly devoted member of a prayer group for members of Congress, where during one meeting Brownback was prompted to apologize to Hillary directly for his unkind comments about her in the 1990s.

The real opportunity Trump offers is for Clinton to reach out to discouraged, disempowered members of the conservative establishment and key Republican constituencies — like evangelicals — who have a true crisis of conscience regarding Donald Trump. These voters and opinion-makers are more open to outreach from a Democrat than ever before. Hillary’s speech in San Diego earlier this month showed a willingness to reach toward the center on foreign policy, but she can do this in other areas as well. As a longtime advocate for families and children, few are better positioned to advance a truly pro-family economic agenda than Hillary. She can also reject our corrosive zero-sum politics around social issues — a brand of politics that she was on the losing end of for so much of her career — and embrace LGBT rights and religious freedom, both reproductive choice and abortion reduction. She has worked to bridge political divides before in her career, but that was when it was an electoral necessity. Today, it would be an act of statesmanship.

When left-leaning special interest groups and liberal ideologues argue that Trump’s candidacy presents an opportunity to ignore those who disagree with them, they are also arguing to further deepen our nation's growing and destructive polarization. Hillary has the opportunity to turn our nation from the politics of division and conflict that has defined so much of her career — for legitimate reasons or not. Whether that is something Hillary wants is another question. But it must be tempting.

Michael Wear directed faith outreach for the 2012 Obama campaign and served in the white House. He is author of the forthcoming Reclaiming Hope: Lessons Learned in the Obama White House About the Future of Faith in America. Follow him on Twitter.